MASTER 

GA  TIVE 


NO.  91-80229 


MICROFILMED  1991 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


ii 


as  part  of  the 
Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project" 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITffiS 


XJLJl^U^ 


Reproductions  mav  not  be  made  withe  J. o 

O        jid  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 

The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  -  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other 
reproductions  of  copyrighted  material... 

Columbia  University  Library  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to 
accept  a  copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


AUTHOR: 


•c 


% 


LL  DANIEL 


TTTLE: 


PLACE: 


I 


ATE 


A  LETTER  TO  THE 

OF  THE 


^    I 


n 


J 


>tai^* 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 


Master  Negative  # 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROrORM  TARGET 


Original  Material  as  Fihned  -  Existing  bibliographic  Record 


House.  oP    cornrnons     oP    tht    unihd    kinodorn  oi 
London   16^9.  0.  H.9p. 

No.    A*     of  a  volume  ofparaphlctu. 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 

FILM     SIZE: j>  ^*»2.^  REDUCTION     RATIO:  //x 

IMApE  PLACEMENT:    lA  aS^  IB    IID 

DATE     FILMED: 9_\lJ±9j___     INITIALS__i/._4<^_._'5_._ 

HLMEDBY:    RESEARCH  PUDLICATIONS.  INC  VVOODBRIDGE.  CT 


c 


Association  for  Information  and  Image  Management 

1 1 00  Wayne  Avenue,  Suite  1 1 00 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

1         2         3 


nil 


iiiiliiiilniiliiiiliiiilii 


n"TT| 


Inches 


4 

ilniilii 


TTT 


5        6 

iiilniiliiiiliiiili 


7        8 

liniliiiilii 


T-TTTJ 


rri  I  I 
3 


1.0 


I.I 


1.25 


9        10       11       12       13       14 

iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliii 


15    mm 


TTT 


lil  |2.8 

25 

150                             """ 

1^6           U. 

2.2 

^  m 

:^  tt& 

2.0 

u. 

»-      u 

biUU 

1.8 

1.4 

1.6 

T 


UJ 


MflNUFfiCTURED   TO   flllM   STflNDfiRDS 
BY   nPPLIED   IMAGE,     INC. 


liiiifi^iifilfiftiiitiiiiiB'riniliiTr^fiTrirffii 


ryj  j^'^'Pl  ^"'l  e  t  t  e  r 


TO    THB 


I'. 


MEMBERS 


or 


THE    HOUSE    OF    COMMONS 


OF    THE 


UNITED   KINGDOM 


or 


GKEAT  BRITAIN  and  IRELAND. 


BY 


DANIEL  O'CONNELL,  Esq 

Member  for  the  County  of  Clare. 


gr 


LONDON : 
JAMES    RIDGWAY,    N«  169,    PICCADILLY. 


MDCCCZXIX. 


I* 

#■: 


LONDON  : 
fRtNTED    BY    T.    BRETTELL,    RUPERT    STRtTT,    HAYMARKET. 


A  LETTER, 


GENTLEMEN, 

IT  is  my  intention  to  take  my  seat  in  the  House, 
and  to  perform,  to  the  best  of  my  judgment,  the 
duties  which  I  owe  to  my  constituents  and  to  my 
country. 

As  my  situation  is  peculiar,  I  deem  it  respectful 
to  obviate  any  possible  opposition  to  my  takinjr 
my  seat,  by  stating,  as  succinctly  and  as  plainly 
as  I  can,  the  grounds  on  which  I  conceive  that  my 
right  to  take  my  seat  is  perfectly  clear,  and  beyond 
any  reasonable  controversy. 

Let  me  premise,  by  admitting,  as  I  candidly  do, 
that  the  question  upon  my  right  is  one  which  re- 
lates solely  to  my  constituents  and  myself,— one 
which  can  never  be  drawn  into  a  precedent— one 
which  does  not  decide  or  necessarily  affect  any 
one  public  or  important  principle.  It  is  a  purely 
personal  and  individual  question.  It  affects  but 
one  man  :  it  relates  to  only  one  seat  in  Parliament. 
Should  I  be  excluded  by  that  which,  for  the  present 
1  may  take  the  liberty  of  treating  as  an  illegal 
vote,  the  consequence  will  be  only  a  personal  per- 
secution beneath  the  dignity  of  any  great  assem- 
bly, and  inconsistent  with  the  feelings  of  dignified 
and  honourable  men.  ° 

It  is  but  just  that  I  should  commence  by  makinff 
this  admission,  although  I  feel  that  it  creates  the 


$ 


necessity  of  offering  an  excuse  for  agitating  any 
question  upon  the  right  of  a  person  of  so  httle 
public  importance  as  myself  I  am,  however, 
ready  to  offer  that  excuse,  and  to  submit  it  to  the 
favourable  interpretation  of  candid  men. 

Mv  excuse  is  two-fold.     First,  I  owe  it  to  the 
honest,  the  feariess,  the  moral,  and  the  genuinely 
loyal  men  who  have  done  me  the  high  and  immor- 
tal honour  of  returning  me  to  Parliament,  to  assert 
their  rights  rather  than  my  own.     Secondly,  1  am 
convinced-pardon  me— that  my  being  in  Parha- 
ment  would  tend  to  advance  the  concihation  and 
consolidation  into  one  mass  of  all  His  Majesty's 
subjects  in  Ireland.  It  would  certainly  afford  great 
and  unmixed  satisfaction  to  the  millions  of  Irish 
Catholics.     I  really  do  not  think  it  would  offend 
any  of  my   Protestant  countrymen.     During  the 
contest,  which  has  now  gone  by  for  ever,  I  had,  of 
course,  many  virulent  opponents  and  bitter  toes ; 
but  I  do  not  think  I  had  one  single  private  enemy. 
If  I  knew  of  such,  I  would  not  allow  the  sun  to  set 
on  our  anger  without  taking  every  means  in  my 
power  to  terminate  our  personal  resentments. 

Mv  taking  my  seat  would  not,  I  think  (I  may 
be  mistaken,  but  I  do  think  it  would  not),  irritate 
any  of  my  Protestant  countrymen,  whilst  I  venture 
to  say  it  would  be  hailed  with  rapturous  dehght 
by  myriads  of  Catholics  and  liberal  Protestants  in 

Ireland.  ,    .  xu 

These  opinions  may  be  erroneous,  but  they  are 
sincere,  and  being  so,  I  am  bound  to  act  upon 
them  :  my  judgment  may  be  impeached,  but  my 
motives  will,  I  trust,  be  uncondemned. 

The  line  of  conduct  I  mean  to  pursue  is  this  :— 
So  soon  as  this  letter  has  been  circulated  m  the 
shape  of  a  pamphlet,  and  shall  have  reached  every 
member  of  the  House  of  Commons,  I  mean  to 
communicate  to  the  Speaker  my  intention  to  take 


my  seat,  and  I  will  then  proceed  to  take  my  seat 
in  the  most  unostentatious  manner. 

I  have  already  taken  the  oaths  of  allegiance  and 
abjuration— I  intend  to  take  the  QaUl4>rovided  for 
Catholic  members  by  the  Relief  Bill  lately  passed. 
Iwill  take  that  oath  according  to  the  provisions 
of  the  20th  section  of  the  Relief  Bill,  before  I  go 

to  the  House. 

I  will  not  take  the  oath  or  declaration  com- 
monly, but  improperly,  called  thejoatjL.ofl_sui^^ 
macy,  for  two  reasons,— ;/?r.9/,  because  I  am  con- 
vinced that  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  take  that 
oath ;  and  secondly,  because  if  it  were  necessary 
to  take  it,  I  could  not  take  it  with  a  safe  con- 
science, it  not  being  true  either  in  fact  or  in  law. 
I  would  prefer  to  sacrifice  any  advantage  rather 
than  take  that  oath.  Even  if  I  were^  Protestant, 
I  would  refuse  to  take  it. 

I  do  hope  that  I  shall  be  permitted  to  take  my 
seat  thus  without  any  obstacle,  and  at  my  own 
risk :  for  let  it  not  be  forgotten,  that  if  I  thus 
take  my  seat  without  having  taken  any  oaths 
which  the  law  may  require,  I  am,  if  those  who  may 
differ  with  me  be  right,  thereby  liable  to  the  most 
serious  and  almost  awful  penalties,  the  smallest  of 
w^hich  is  a  pecuniary  fine  of  500/. 

The  day  after  I  take  my  seat,  any  man  in  the 
community  may  bring  an  action  against  me  for 
500/.  penalty.  If  he  should  succeed  in  that 
action,  then,  by  the  judgment  of  a  court  of  law,  I 
should  be  disqualified  to  hold  any  office  or  place  of 
trust,  civil  or  military,  and  my  expulsion  from  the 
House  would  be  a  necessary  and  inevitable  con- 
sequence. 

The  courts  of  law  are  open  to  every  human 
being  who  may  choose  to  put  my  right  into  a  train 
of  legal  investigation.  In  those  courts,  however, 
I  am  entitled  to  make  a  full  defence,  and  t©  t«k« 


n 


i 


the  opinion  of  the  superior  courts  by  appeal  until  f 
have  the  judgment  of  the  court  of  dernier  resort  in 
these  countries.  By  leaving  the  matter  to  the 
courts  of  law  there  cannot  be  a  failure  of  justice  at 
either  side.  All  I  desire  is,  that  if  there  be  a 
question  of  right,  it  should  be  left  by  the  House  to 
be  tried  by  the  courts  of  law,  and  that  the  House 
will  not  by  a  vote  take  away  my  defence,  and  de- 
prive me  of  my  right  of  appeal  to  all  the  Judges  in 
the  highest  court  in  the  land. 

My  desire  is  simply  this, — that  the  House  of 
Commons  should  leave  any  question  of  law  on  my 
right  to  sit  and  vote  to  be  decided  by  the  known 
legal  tribunals  :  that  is  all  I  ask  :  it  is  at  my  risk, — 
it  is  at  my  peril.  Why  should  the  House  interfere 
summarily  ? 

It  is  perfectly  plain  that  I  cannot  have  any 
doubt  upon  my  mind  that  the  law  is  in  my  favour, 
otherwise  I  should  never  be  so  insane  as  to  risk  all 
my  property  and  prospects  in  life  for  a  seat  in  any 
assembly,  however  honourably  composed.  I  have 
been  thirty  years  at  the  bar  in  considerable  prac- 
tice. It  will  at  least  be  believed  that  I  am  myself 
deeply  convinced  that  I  can  take  my  seat  without 
being  subject  to  any  forfeiture,  pains,  penalties,  or 
disabilities  whatsoever. 

Having  this  conviction  deeply  impressed  on  my 
mind,  I  trust  I  shall  be  able  to  convey  to  others  an 
adequate  notion  of  the  process  of  reasoning  which 
seems  to  me  to  establish  my  right  beyond  a  doubt. 

1^/.  Let  it  be  recollected  that  I  have  been  re- 
gularly elected  by  the  free  and  spontaneous  choice 
of  an  overwhelming  majority  of  the  electors  of  the 
county  of  Clare.  I  say  free  and  spontaneous 
emphatically,  because  the  only  assertion  of  undue 
influence  on  the  minds  of  the  electors  was  that  of 
the  Catholic  clergy.  Now  it  is  a  part  of  history 
that  the  highest  in  rank,  and  second  to  none  in 


character,  of  the  Catholic  clergy  in  Clare,  were  to 
be  found  amongst  the  friends  of  my  opponents  : 
such  an  election  as  mine  is  one  which  will  not,  I 
trust  I  may  say  cannot,  be  nullified  by  any  flippant 
vote  or  summary  declaration  of  the  House. 

2«rf/y.  Let  it  be  recollected  that  my  right  to  be 
elected   was   submitted  to   a  Committee   of   the 
House, — a  Committee  whose  decision  is,  by  the 
express  law  of  the  land,  final  and  conclusive, — a 
Committee  whose   final   and  conclusive   decision 
was  in  my  favour,  although  it  was  proved  before 
them  expressly,  and  not  controverted  or  denied, 
that   I    had    at    the   public   hustings,  before    and 
dui'ing  the  election,  declared   that    I    would  not 
take  any  oath  in  or  out  of  Parliament  inconsistent 
with  the  Catholic  religion.     I  trust  that  a  final 
and  conclusive  decision  of  this  nature,  made  on  the 
merits,  will  not  be  nullified  by  any  flippant  vote 
or  summary  declaration  of  the  House. 

3rrf///.  Let  it  be  recollected,  that  I  am  ready  to 
take  all  the  oaths  which  any  other  Catholic 
member  can  7iow  t)y  possibility  be  required  to 
take, 

I  respectfully  insist,  that  I  am  not  bound  to  take 
any  other  oath. 

I  respectfully  insist,  that  the  House  has  not  any 
rightjto  refuse  to  allow  me  to  sit  upon  taking  the 
new  oath. 

I  respectfully  insist,  that  the  House  has  not  any 
right  to  expel  me  from  the  House,  and  to  issue  a 
new  writ,  by  reason  of  my  refusal  to  take  the  oath 
called  of  supremacy,  or  any  other  oath  inconsistent 
with  the  Catholic  religion. 

This  last  assertion  raises  the  real  and  important 
question — whether  the  House  can  expel  me  for  so 
refusing ;  because,  unless  the  House  be  entitled  to 
declare  my  seat  vacant,  on  my  refusal  to  take  the 


1 


8 


9 


V 


■  t.^  ^ 


oath  of  supf^macy,  they  surely  cannot  exclude  ifie 
^2^i   y  from  sitting  and  voting. 

«/>i    'zL  >     ^  think  I  may  defy  any  man  to  assert,  that  the 
//'"^/ ^  -^House  can  now  proceed  to^xpel  me,  and  to  issue 
-fi—y'^^^'^-i  new  writ,  by  reason  of^my  refusal  to  take  the 

oaths  of  supremacy  ;  yet,  if  that  cannot  be  asserted 
or  done,  where  is  the  man  so  ridiculous  as  to  form 
an  idea  of  a  kind  of  sub-power  in  the  House  to 
leave  me  Member  for  Clare,  but  at  the  same  time 
to  prevent  me  from  sitting  and  voting, — a  specie  of 
aerial  suspension,  like  the  fabled  coffin  of  Mahomet, 
between  the  adverse  attractions  of  election  on  the 
one  hand,  and  expulsion  on  the  other ! 

Every  difficulty  can  be  avoided,  and  every  ob- 
stacle obviated,  by  allowing  me  to  sit  and  vote  at 
my  own  peril,  and  by  leaving  the  law  open  to  every 
body — that  is,  to  me  as  well  as  to  my  adversaries — 
on  the  trial  of  any  question  touching  my  sitting 
and  voting  without  taking  the  oath  of  supremacy. 
On  this  subject  I  wish  to  establish  this  propo- 
^  -sition— 
/  ./  /*^^  First,  that  the  question  on  my  right  is  one  of 

^^      ^   ' '       law,  and  not  of  privilege. 

If  I  be  right  in  this  position,  the  question  shoul3 

be  decided  in  the  courts  of  justice,  and  in  these 

alone :  it  should  not  be  decided  by  any  vote  of  the 

House. 

.        ,;  ^^^  It  is  not  the  privilege  of  the  House  to  decide  on 

(*^''K/\  fv'    any  matter  respecting  oaths.     The  House  of  Com- 

'  ^^  ^*     *^*taons  cannot  frame  an  oath  for  its  members,  nor 

require  an  oath  of  its  members.  Nay,  it  has  not 
the  power  or  authority  to  administer  an  oath  to 
any  person,  unless  expressly  authorized  to  do  so  by 
particular  act  of  Parliament 

It  follows  of  inevitable  necessity,  that  the  House 
cannot  expel  any  Member  for  not  taking  an  oath, 
unless  there  be  an  act  of  Parliament  requiring  the 
House  so  to  do. 


A 


Z^-:"' 


c^\ 


r^- 


f,4'^ 


^, 


If,  therefore,  there  be  not  a  positive  act  of  Par- 
liament requiring  the  House  to  expel  me  for  not 
taking  the  oath  of  supremacy,  the  House  cannot 
do  so  on  the  allegation  that  the  refusal  on  my  part 
to  take  the  oath  is  a  breach  of  privilege. 

I  am  fully  aware  that  Parliamentary  usage  may 
have  the  force  of  a  law — may  be  equally  binding 
on  the  House  with  any  statute :  but  it  is  only  one 
species  of  Parliamentary  usage  that  has  that  force 
— namely,  usage  "  to  the  contrary  of  which  the 
memory  of  man  runneth  not."  It  is,  then,  evidence 
of  a  power  or  authority  at  common  law.  But 
usage  of  a  modern  date,  the  origin  of  which  can  be 
traced,  has  no  such  force ;  and  especially  an  usage 
which  has  commenced  under  and  by  virtue  of  a 
recent  statute,  and  which,  in  fact  and  truth,  is  no- 
thing else  but  a  conformity  with,  or  rather  an 
obedience  to,  a  recent  statute ;  such  usage  as  this 
is  of  no  force  or  value  to  create  any  species  of  Par- 
liamentary privilege,  or  to  give  any  power  or  au- 
thority to  the  House  of  Commons,  save  what  it 
derives  directly  from  the  statute  law  itself. 

For  example,  the  power  to  administer  the  decla- 
rations against  transubstantiation  and  the  sacrifice 
of  the  mass,  and  the  invocation  of  saints,  was  given 
to  the  House  by  the  statute  the  30th  of  Charles  II. 

The  usage  to  administer  those  declarations  com- 
menced with  that  statute.  It  was  not  a  Parlia-  >^  y<^ 
mentary  privilege  to  administer  those  declarations,  z^-  ^nJ-rz^ 
It  was  a  mere  duty,  and  obedience  to  a  legislative  ^^  ^^r 
provision.  The  right  to  expel  a  Member  for  re-  ^.r^y  . 
fusing  to  make  those  declarations  was  not  a  Parlia- 
mentary privilege.  It  was  a  duty  imposed  on  the 
House  of  Commons  by  that  statute.  ^ 

Those  declarations  are  all  repealed  by  *'  the  Re-  ^^^^"^f/  ^ 
lief  Bill,"  and  therefore  the  right  to  require  theses  ^r^*/^^'--^ 
declarations,  and  the  duty  of  expelling  Members  foi>^  ^^  C 

not  making  these  declarations,  are  all  at  an  end. 


/ 


^- 


^. 


/ 


^f  f  '^^yl<  *:  /TZ, 


:  ^»^<' 


[I 


10 


No  parliamentary  privilege  can,  therefore,  be 
created  by  the  usage  and  practice  since  the  30th 
of  Charles  II.  of  the  House  of  Commons  to  require 
oaths  or  declarations.  It  is  not  an  usage  or  prac- 
tice that  can  at  present  confer  on  the  House  any, 
even  the  smallest  right  or  privilege  whatsoever. 

My  question,  therefore,  cannot  be  treated  as  a 
question  of  privilege,  enabling  the  House  to  expel 
me  by  a  vote ;  at  least  it  cannot  be  so  treated 
without  the  grossest  injustice  to  me  and  to  my 
constituents. 

Whilst  I  am  on  this  subject  let  me  refer.  Gen- 
tlemen, to  the  excellent  definition,  or  at  least 
description,  of  Parliamentary  privilege,  as  given  by 
Lord  Clarendon,  in  the  second  volume  of  his 
Histonjofthe  Great  Rebellion,  at  page  195,  and 
the  following  pages. 

The  House  of  Commons  had  at  that  time  in- 
sisted that  it  was  the  privilege  of  the  Members 
of  that  House  to  be  exempt  from  all  arrests,  even 
for  treason,  felony,  or  breach  of  the  peace,  unless 
the  leave  of  the  House  was  first  obtained. 

They  said,  "  we  are  confessed  to  be  sole  judges 
of  our  own  privileges ;  therefore,  whatever  we 
declare  to  be  our  privilege  is  such." 

Lord  Clarendon  has  very  properly  and  justly 
censured  this  reasoning,  and  shown  that  the  House 
was  judges  of  its  ow  n  privileges  only  in  the  limited 
sense,  —  "  that  is  to  say"  (1  use  his  own  words), 
**  upon  the  breach  of  those  privileges  which  the 

LAW  HATH  DECLARED  TO  BE  THEIR  OWN,  AND 
WHAT  PUNISHMENT  IS  TO  BE  INFLICTED  UPON 
SUCH  BREACH.  BUT  THERE  CAN  BE  NO  PRIVI- 
LEGE OF  WHICH  THE  LAAV  DOTH  NOT  TAKE 
NOTICE,  AND  WHICH  IS  NOT  PLEADABLE  BV 
AND    AT    LAW." 

The  law  has  not  given  or  declared  any  such 
privilege,  as  that  of  the   House   of   Commons   to 


Mi 


II 


require,  nay,  much  less  to  administer  any  oath. 
It  has  not  given  or  declared  any  privilege  of  the 
House  to  expel  for  not  taking  any  oath.  The 
House,  therefore,  cannot  in  my  case  usurp  the 
privilege  of  expelling  me  for  refusing  to  take  the 
oath  of  supremacy. 

It  is  quite  another  question,  whether  the  House 
be  required  by  statute  law  to  expel  me  for  not 
taking  that  oath.  All  I  now  contend  for,  is,  that 
there  is  no  privilege  or  usage  that  can  warrant 
or  justify  such  expulsion,  unless  it  be  directed 
by  the  express  words  of  the  statute  law. 

Thus  contending,  as  I  think  I  can  do  success- 
fully, that  the  exposition  of  the  statute  law  belongs 
to  the  courts  of  justice,  and  not  to  the  House,  I  do 
not  mean  to  rest  my  case  on  this  point  alone.  My 
case  is  too  strong  to  put  it  exclusively  on  what 
may  be  called  a  technical. objection  to  the  juris- 
diction of  the  House  ;  but,  in  truth,  it  is  a  sub- 
stantial objection,  because,  as  the  opposition  to  my 
right  to  sit  and  vote  must  be  founded  on  alleged 
provisions  in,  and  constructions  of,  the  statute  law, 
I  do  respectfully  submit,  that  a  large  popular 
assembly  of  men,  unaccustomed  to  the  modes  of 
legal  argumentation,  is,  for  many  reasons,  unfit  for 
the  trial  of  such  legal  questions. 

But  let  me  suppose,  that  the  House  will  assume 
that  this  is  a  question  of  privilege. 

Yet  the  House  cught  to  decide  in  my  favour. 

I  respectfully  insist  that  the  House  cannot  decide 
against  me  without  a  plain  and  palpable  violation 
of  every  principle  of  law  and  justice. 

This  is  a  strong  assertion :  I  proceed  to  esta- 
blish it. 

First,—!  rely  on  the  arguments  contained  in 
my  letter  of  the  2nd  of  February  last,  to  the  Mem- 
bers of  the  House  of  Commons.  The  conclusion 
contained  in  that  letter  was  founded  on  principles 


12 


i/ 


^    /*^ 


n. 


?t 


■/^' 


of  penal  law,  as  applicable  to  the  Irish  Union  Act, 
and  being  prior  to  "  the  Relief  Bill,"  was,  of 
course,  unconnected  with  the  legal  effects  of  that 
Bill. 

Secondly, — I    rely  on  the   legal  effects  of  the 
Relief  Bill  itself.    This  is  the  ground  I  most  desire 
to  take.     I  am  better  pleased  to  owe  to  the  Relief 
f  Bill  the  enjoyment  of  the  right  to  sit  and  vote  than 
^^  /ItM^/^   ^o  any  decision  on  the  anterior  law.     The  Relief 

Bill  is,  in  itself,  a  measure  of  so  much  wisdom  and 
beneficence,  that  I  greatly  desire  to  derive  from  it 
alone  all  the  political  advantages,  which,  as  a 
Catholic,  I  may  ever  enjoy.  I  therefore  cheer- 
fully rely  on  the  legal  effects  of  the  Relief  Bill. 

To  render  my  reasoning  on  this  point  more 
distinct,  I  will,  for  the  present,  disembarrass  it 
of  every  connexion  with  the  Union  Act,  and  treat 
it,  in  the  first  instance,  as  if  the  laws  respecting 
parliamentary  oaths  were  unchanged  by  the  Act 
of  Union. 

The  law  of  parliamentary  oaths  before  the 
Union  stood  thus  : — No  member  could  sit  or  vote 
in  the  House  of  Commons  until  he  had  taken 
in  the  House  itself  the  oath  of  allegiance  and 
supremacy,  and  the  oath  called  the  declarations 
against  transubstantiation,  the  sacrifice  of  the 
mass,  and  the  invocation  of  the  Virgin  Mary  and 
other  saints. 

If  any  person  sat  or  voted  without  taking  these 
^  ^aths,  he  incurred  many  pains,  penalties,  and  dis- 
abilities,— amongst  them,  a  fine  of  500/. ;  and  the 
House  was  enjoined  by  the  statute  to  expel  such 
Member,  and  to  issue  a  new  writ. 

Such  was  the  state  of  the  law  in  the  British 
Parliament. 

I  take  up  the  Relief  Bill  as  operating  on  that 
state  of  the  law. 

To  understand  that  operation,  we  must  analyse 


^  ^ 


7 


13 


the  ingredients  which  constitute  this  law  before 
the  Relief  Bill. 

The  first  and  principal,  and  we  shall  presently 
see  the  sole  'potential  ingredient,  was  the  statute  of 
the  30th  Charles  II.  Every  other  was  only  ancil- 
lary to  that  statute  or  ingrafted  on  it  as  on  the 
parent  and  solely  sustaining  stock. 

The  statute  of  the  .30th  Charles  11.  did  this : — 
it  enacted,  that  the  oath  of  allegiance  and  supre- 
macy, and  the  declarations  against  transubstan- 
tiation, the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  and  the  invo- 
cation of  the  Virgin  Mary  and  other  saints,  should 
be  taken  in  the  House.  The  subsequent  statute  of 
1st  William  and  Mary  did  nothing  more  in  this 
respect  than  alter  the  form  of  the  oath  of  allegiance 
and  supremacy  to  be  so  taken. 

The  statute  of  the  30th  Charles  II.  enacted  by 
express  words  the  penalties  I  have  above  alluded 
to, — amongst  them  the  fine  of  500/. 

Observe,  the  principal  object  of  the  statute  of 
the  30th  Charles  II.  was  to  enforce  the  taking  of 
the  declarations  against  transubstantiation,  &c. 
Whoever  took  that  oath  would  not  hesitate  to 
take  the  oath  of  supremacy,  such  as  it  is  at  present 
framed. 

Observe  also,  that  the  refusal  to  take  the  several 
oaths  formed  but  one  aggregate  offence,  and  re- 
quired but  one  penalty.  The  oaths  could  not  be 
taken  separately  or  severally  under  these  statutes; 
the  refusal  to  take  them  formed  but  one  offence, 
and  gave  but  one  penalty. 

For  example,  although  there  were  several  oaths 
to  be  taken  in  the  House,  there  was  but  one 
penalty.  Take  up  the  500/.  penalty  as  illustrative 
of  all.  There  was  not  one  penalty  of  500/.  for 
omitting  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance ;  another 
500/.   penalty  for  omitting   to  take  the  oath  of 


14 


supremacy ;  another  500/.  penalty  for  not  taking 
the  declarations  against  transnbstantiation,  &c. 

No,  there  were  not  several  penalties, — there  was 
but  one  penalty.  All  the  oaths  were  to  be  taken 
at  one  time— there  could  be  but  one  refusal.  The 
principal,  and  indeed  the  vital,  portion  of  the 
corpus  delicti  was  the  refusal  to  make  the  decla- 
rations against  transubstantiation,  <^c. 

Now  mark,  these  declarations  are  totally  and 
entirely  repealed,  and  for  ever  abolished,  by  the 
first  section  of  the  Relief  Bill. 

That  is,  the  principal,  the  vital,  the  most  im- 
portant part  of  the  offence,  of  the  corpus  delicti,  is 
taken  away  l)y  positive  enactment.  Is  the  entire 
punishment  to  remain  ? 

I  ask  that  question  of  any  lawyer  in  the  House 

I  ask  it  of  any  person  possessing  common  sense. 
An  answer  in  the  affirmative  would  bespeak  more 
absurdity,  if  possible,  than  injustice. 

Take  up  the  pecuniary  penalty.  The  legis- 
lature gives  a  penalty  for  omitting  to  take  five 
oaths— one  penalty  for  the  entire  omission :  then 
the  legislature  abolishes  three  out  of  the  five,  and 
does  not  attribute  the  penalty  to  the  remaining 
two.  Now,  if  it  were  possible  for  any  man  to 
assert  that  the  penalty  remained,  I  would  ask  him 
whether  it  must  not  at  least  be  apportioned,  and 
part  of  it  at  least  abolished.  It  is  true  that,  as  to 
the  pecuniary  penalty,  it  may  be  possible  to  make 
a  division  or  apportionment  of  it  by  calculation  ; 
but  whoever  heard  of  an  apportionment  of  a 
penalty  for  a  part  of  a  crime — a  fractional  portion 
of  an  offence  ? 

But  I  need  not  dwell  on  the  absurdity  and  ridicu- 
lous nature  of  any  assertion  that  the  penalty,  or  any 
part  of  it,  remains.  Let  me,  however,  remark,  that 
although  it  is  possible  to  apportion  the  pecuniary 


'Mi. 


15 


penalty,  you  cannot  apportion  or  divide  the  penalty 
of  expulsion.  There  cannot  be  two-thirds  of  an 
expulsion  ;  unless,  indeed,  two-thirds  of  the  man 
were  to  l)e  turned  out  of  the  House,  and  the  other 
third  part  left  sticking  in  the  honourable  House. 

This,  then,  is  the  plain  legal  effect  of  the  first 
section  of  the  Relief  Bill.  It  has  destroyed  the 
essence  of  the  offence,  and  the  far  greater  portion 
of  its  component  parts.  It  has  of  course,  and 
a  multo  Jortiori,  annihilated  the  pains,  penalties, 
and  disabilities  attached  to  the  offence. 

To  the  mind  of  any  lawyer,  this  view  of  the 
legal  effect  of  the  Relief  Bill  is  perfectly  plain  ; 
I  trust  it  will  be  equally  intelligible  to  every 
member  of  the  House ;  if  so,  there  can  be  no 
hesitation  to  admit  me  to  the  full  enjoyment  of 
my  right  to  sit  and  vote. 

I  wish  to  obviate  one  objection  which  may  pos- 
sibly be  made.  It  is  not  probable  that  such  an 
objection  will  be  made,  but  if  it  should,  it  is  right 
to  have  the  reply  ready. 

It  may,  and  probably  will  be  at  once  conceded, 
that  the  effect  of  the  Relief  Bill  is  to  extinguish 
the  penalties  in  the  30th  of  Charles  II.  ;  but  the 
statute  1st  of  William  and  Mary,  altering  the  oath 
of  supremacy,  may  be  resorted  to  as  creating  a 
new  and  distinct  penalty  for  not  taking  that 
oath.  But  that  objection  totally  fails,  because  the 
statute  1st  of  William  and  Mary  creates  no  new 
penalty  or  disability  whatsoever.  On  the  contrary, 
it  mentions  penalties  and  disabilities  only  as  being 
those  contained  in  the  30th  of  Charles  II.  Thus 
the  fact  annihilates  the  objection. 

Therefore,  now,  after  the  Relief  Bill  has  totally 
abolished,  for  all  the  King's  subjects,  Protestants 
as  well  as  Catholics,  the  declarations  in  the  30th 
of  Charles  II.,  to  expel  me  from  the  House,  merely 
because  I  refuse  to  take  the  oath  of  supremacy, 


I : 


»i 


16 


17 


might,  I  most  respectfully  submit,  be  deemed  as 
gross  an  act  of  injustice  to  an  humble  individual 
as  was  ever  perpetrated  upon  greater  occasions  by 
the  usurping  House  of  Commons  of  the  Long 
Parliament,  which  hurried  on  to  rebellion,  and 
ended  in  regicide. 

But,  after  all,  perhaps  I  am  unpardonable  in 
dwelhng  so  long  on  the  legal  effect  of  the  Relief 
Bill,  when  the  positive  enactment  of  another  part 
of  that  Bill  provides  for  me  the  undisturbed,  and, 
I  think,  indisputable  exercise  of  my  right  to  sit 
and  vote  in  Parliament. 

Let  me  carry  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  the 
statute  as  it  is  framed,  so  as  to  put  an  end  to  all 
controversy. 

The  first  section,  as  already  stated,  abolishes  the 
declarations  against  transubstantiation,  &c.  The 
second  section  enacts,  **  that  nnv  Catholic  being  a 
Peer,  or  ivho  shall  after  the  commencement  of  this 
act  he  returned  as  a  member  /  the  House  of 
Commons,''  shall  be  qualified  to  sit  or  vote  upon 
taking  the  new  oath  in  that  act,  instead  of  the 
oaths  and  supremacy  and  abjuration. 

This  section  certainly  enables  all  Catholics  re- 
turned as  members  after  the  commencement  of 
the  act,  to  sit  and  vote  on  taking  the  new  oath. 
I  may  for  the  present  concede  that  it  does  not 
touch  the  case  of  a  person  who  was  returned  as  a 
member  before  the  commencement  of  the  act, 
although  it  is  quite  clear  that  a  man  returned  as  a 
member  before  the  act  continues  to  answer  the 
description  of  and  to  be  returned  as  a  member 
afler  the  act  has  passed. 

The  third  section  relates  to  the  name  of  the 
reigning  monarch,  and  is  immaterial  to  our  present 
purpose. 

The  fourth  section  only  provides,  and  that  in  an 
exceedingly  clumsy  way,  for  the  taking  rf  the  new 


oaths.  This  section  would  give  occasion  to  much 
observation,  if  it  was  necessary  to  dilate  upon  its 
clumsiness,  but  as  I  am  ready  to  take  the  new 
oath,  I  pass  it  over  without  further  comment. 

The  fifth,  sixth,  and  seventh  sections  relate  to 
the  voting  by  Catholics  at  elections. 

The  eighth  section  relates  exclusively  to  Scot- 
land. 

The  ninth  section  excludes  Catholic  priests  from 
Parliament. 

I  have  entered  into  these  details  in  order  to 
come  to  the  tenth  section,  which  is  so  clear  and  so 
decisive  in  favour  of  my  exercising  my  right  to  sit 
in  Parliament  without  taking  tlie  oath  of  supre- 
macy, that  I  must  quote  it  at  full  length. 

Let  me  premise  by  saying  that  the  right  to  sit 
in  Parliament  is  clearly  a  civil  right ; — that,  I 
think,  is  a  position  which  nobody  can  venture  to 
deny.  Yet  if  to  sit  in  Parliament  be  a  civil  right, 
then  I  must  sit  without  taking  the  oath  of  supre- 
macy. These  are  the  words  of  the  10th  section 
ipsissimis  verbis : — 

"  lOth,  And  be  it  enacted,  that  it  shall  be  lawful 
for  any  of  His  Majesty's  subjects  professing  the 
Roman  Catholic  religion  to  hold,  exercise,  and 
enjoy  all  civil  and  military  offices  and  places  of 
trust  or  profit  under  His  Majesty,  his  heirs,  or 
successors,  and  to  exercise  any  other  fran- 
chise OR  CIVIL  RIGHT,  exccpt  as  hereinafter 
excepted,  upon  taking  and  subscribing,  at  the  times 
and  in  the  manner  hereinafter  mentioned,  the  oath 
hereinbefore  appointed  and  set  forth,  instead  of  the 
oath  of  allegiance,  supremacy,  and  abjuration,  and 
instead  of  such  other  oaths  as  are  or  may  be  now 
by  law  required  to  be  taken  for  the  purpose  afore- 
said by  any  of  His  Majesty's  subjects  professing 
the  Roman  Catholic  religion." 

Nothing  can  be  more  distinct  and  complete. 

B 


18 


Observe,  that  there  is  no  reference  to  any  pre- 
cedent clause,  matter,  or  thing  in  the  statute,  save 
the  new  oath, — not  the  least. 

The  exercise  of  every  civil  right  is  allouedr 
except  its  thereinafter  excepted ;  so  that  every  civil 
right  thereinbefore  mentioned  is  necessarily,  and 
by  force  of  the  very  words,  included. 

Now  the  only  matters  capable  of  being  called 
exceptions  thereinafter  contained,  are  the  offices 
enumerated  in  the  12th  section,  of  Regent,  Lord 
Lieutenant,  Lord  Chancellor,  and  one  or  two  other 
high  offices;  and  those  expressed  in  the  15th  and 
16th  sections  as  to  ecclesiastical  livings  and  offices. 

This  is  so  clear,  that  any  attempt  at  illustrating 
it  only  seems  to  create  a  difficulty.  It  is  like 
proving  that  two  and  two  make  four. 

Suppose  the  10th  section  of  the  statute  enacted 
that  Catholics  shall  enjoy  every  civil  right  without 
taking  the  oath  of  supremacy,  provided  they  took 
the  new  oath.  In  that  case,  is  it  not  as  clear  as 
the  sun  at  noon-day  that  I  should,  as  a  Catholic, 
be  entitled  to  sit  in  Parliament  without  taking  the 
oath  of  supremacy,  provided  I  take  the  new  oath  ? 

That  is  quite  clear  :  yet  this  section  is  still  more 
clearly  in  my  favour,  because  it  is  more  particu- 
larly and  precisely  so  ;  for  it  grants  the  exercise  of 
every  civil  right  by  taking  the  new  oath,  and 
without  taking  the  oath  of  supremacy,  except 
such  as  are  thereinafter  enumerated.  Now  that 
enumeration  is  made  in  the  subsequent  sections, 
and  does  not  contain  any  exclusion  of  the  right  of 
a  duly  elected  member  to  sit  and  vote  in  Parliament. 
It  amounts,  therefore,  to  a  legislative  declaration  of 
two  classes  of  civil  rights.  All  in  the  enumerated 
class  are  excluded.  All  those,  of  every  kind  of  civil 
rights,  not  enumerated  are  necessarily  included. 

But  this  case,  on  the  particular  point  of  the 
civil  right  to  sit  in  Parliament,  is  still  more  clear. 


"am-* 


19 


because  that  right  is  mentioned  in  tlie  precedent 
part  of  the  statute.     Now  no  right  mentioned  in 
the  precedent  part  of  the  statute  is  at  all  excepted  ;* 
but,    on    the  contrary,  the  exception  commences' 
with,  and    is  exclusively  confined   to,  matters  in, 
the  subsequent  parts  of  the  statute.  ; 

It  may  be  said  that  the  second  and  tenth  sections 
are  thus  rendered  contradictory;  or  that  at  least 
there  is  an  implied  contradiction.  It  is  not  so  at 
all.  At  least  all  appearance  of  contradiction 
ceases,  if  the  second  section  be  construed  as  ex- 
cluding me  from  its  benefit. 

In  that  view,  the  second  section  relates  only  to 
persons  to  be  returned  after  the  passing  of  the  act. 
Persons  who  may  thereafter,  by  such  return,  acquire 
the  right  to  sit  in  the  House,  are  thus  contemplated 
by  the  second  section  ;  and  the  tenth  section  relates 
to  persons  in  my  situation,  who  had  already  ac- 
quired that  right,  but  were  prevented  from  exer- 
cising it  by  the  necessity  of  taking  the  oath  of  su- 
premacy. In  other  words,  the  Earl  of  Surrey, 
comes  within  the  meaning  of  the  second  section  : 
I  come  within  the  meaning  of  the  tenth. 

I  am  really  ashamed  of  arguing  any  thing  so 
plain  as  the  operation  of  the  10th  section  of  this 
act.  To  a  legal  mind  it  affords  neither  doubt  or 
difficulty.  To  any  man  it  is  almost  an  insult  to 
suppose  that  he  can  need  argument  to  convince 
him  of  my  right  to  sit  in  Parliament  without  taking 
the  oath  of  supremacy,  as  I  shall  have  taken  the 
new  oath  in  the  law  courts  before  I  go  down 
to  the  House,  and  shall  take  it  again  in  the' 
House. 

The  law  and  facts  of  my  case  stand  thus : 

1^/.  I  have  been  duly  elected  member  for  the 
county  of  Glare,  and  that  election  has  been  ratified 
by  the  decision  of  a  committee  of  the  House  of 
Commons. 


s 


i 


! 


'  ) 


20 


Mildly.  That  election  has  given  me  the  right  to 
sit  and  vote  in  the  House  of  Commons  ;  and  that 
right  was  and  is  a  civil  right,  and  nothing  but  a 
civil  right. 

Srdly,  The  exercise  by  me  of  that  right  has 
heretofore  been  impeded  by  the  necessity,  or  at 
least  the  alleged  necessity,  of  taking  the  oath  of 
supremacy,  and  making  the  declarations  against 
transubstantiation,  &c. 

4ithhj,  These  declarations  have  been  for  ever 
abolished  by  the  first  section  of  the  Relief  Bill. 

5thlij.  The  new  oath  has  been  substituted  for 
the  oath  of  supremacy  by  the  ]Oth  section  of  the 
Relief  Bill,  save  in  the  cases  thereinafter  excepted. 

Qthhj.  The  right  to  sit  in  Parliament  is  not  one 
of  the  cases  thereinafter  or  therein  at  all  excepted. 

No  man  before  me  was  ever  called  on  to  argue  a 
case  so  completely  in  his  favour  in  all  its  parts, 
being  so  demonstrative  as  to  render  the  use  of  ar- 
gument or  illustration  quite  superfluous. 

Under  those  circumstances,  shall  I  be  deprived, 
I  had  almost  said  defrauded,  of  my  just  right  ?  I 
omit  the  harsh  word  out  of  respect  to  those  whom 
I  address,  but  I  do  earnestly  implore  that  there 
may  not,  in  the  presence  of  the  British  empire, 
and  in  particular  to  the  listening  ear  of  long- 
oppressed  and  often — ah,  how  often — deluded  Ire- 
land !  be  any  opposition  given  to  my  exercising 
this  my  plain  and  palpable  right. 

I  can  afford  to  give  up  many  arguments  which 
I  should  consider  it  my  duty  to  address  to  a  court 
of  justice,  w^ere  I  to  argue  the  case  as  a  counsel 
retained  only  by  his  feelings  and  conviction. 

For  example,  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  words 
in  the  second  section,  a  person  "  who  shall,  after 
the  commencement  of  this  act,  he  returned  as  a 
member  of  the  House  of  Commons  ?  *'  Mere  lay- 
men would  smile  at  the  many   argimients  which 


21 


could  be  adduced  to  show  that  I  come  within  that 
description — arguments  which  might  persuade 
judges  accustomed  to  similar  investigations. 

My  forensic  habits  induce  me  to  remark,  that 
this  description  is  not  tantamount  to  what  it 
would  be  if  the  words  were  "  whose  return  as  a 
member  shall  he  made  at  any  time  after  the  pass- 
ingofthis  actr  These  are  not  the  words,  nor  any 
thing  like  them;  yet  I  think  the  construction 
which  should  exclude  me  would  require  some  such 
words  as  I  have  last  mentioned. 

I  am  also  compelled  to  remark,  that  the  use  of 
the  word  "  returned"  brings  me  within  its  exact 
meaning.  I  am  returned  as  a  member  to  the 
House  now,  am  I  not  ?  I  am  now,  after  the  passing 
of  this  act,  as  much  a  returned  member  as  I  was 
before. 

I  do  not  like  to  urge  this  topic  farther ;  but  I 
cannot  avoid  informing  such  members  as  are  un- 
learned in  the  mysteries  of  the  law,  that  it  is  quite 
certain  that  an  estate  may  be  devised  or  limited  to 
a  son  of  A.  B.  thereafter  to  he  hy  him  hegotten, 
and  yet  that  a  son  of  A.  B.  long  theretofore  begot- 
ten and  born  may  take  the  estate  under  that 
description.  This  is  not  mere  judicial  caprice,  but 
is  founded  on  reasons  which  I  shall  not  investigate, 
but  which  originate  in  the  principle  of  giving  efB- 
cacy  to  the  vesting  of  rights. 

There  is  yet  one  more  view  of  the  effect  of  the 
Relief  Bill,  which,  if  it  stood  alone,  would  enable 
me  to  sit  and  vote  in  Parliament. 

To  make  this  last  view  of  the  effect  of  the  Relief 
Bill  the  more  easily  understood,  I  beg  to  remind 
those  whom  I  address  of  the  exact  state  of  the  law 
regarding  Parliamentary  oaths,  as  I  have  proved  it 
by  my  letter  of  the  2nd  of  February  last  to  have 
existed  prior  to  the  passing  of  tiiis  Relief  Bill. 

The  law  of  Parliamentary  oaths  did  at  that  time 


!, 


22 


23 


depend,  and  indeed  must  have  depended,  on  the 
statute  passed  in  Great  Britain  on  the  one  hand, 
and  in  Ireland  on  the  other,  for  the  legislative 
union  of  both  countries. 

By  these  Union  Acts,  the  oaths  theretofore  taken 
in  the  British  Parliament  were  directed  to  be  taken 
in  the  United  Kingdom  Parliament. 

The  Union  Acts  directed  and  required  the  oaths 
to  be  taken,  but  those  acts  did  not  impose  any 
penalty  for  not  taking  the  oaths,  neither  did  they 
create  or  continue  any  incapacity  to  sit  or  vote  by 
reason  of  not  having  taken  them. 

Such  was  the  state  of  the  law  respecting  Parlia- 
mentary oaths  before  the  passing  of  the  Relief 
Bill.  There  was  a  direction  by  an  extinct  legis- 
lature, that  the  oaths  should  be  taken :  nothing 
more. 

The  words  of  the  enactment  directing  the  oaths 
to  be  taken  are  these : — "  That  every  member  of 
the  House  of  Commons  shall,  until  the  Par- 
liament OF  THE  United  Kingdom  shall 
OTHERWISE  PROVIDE,  take  the  oaths,  and  make 
and  subscribe  the  declaration,"  &c.  &c. 

It  is  quite  obvious  that  this  direction  to  take  the 
oaths  was  not  contemplated  by  the  Irish  Parlia- 
ment to  be  perpetual ;  on  the  contrary,  it  was  in 
express  words  a  mere  temporary  direction. 

It  was  temporary.  Be  pleased  to  mark  that. 
It  was  hmited  in  point  of  time. 

Now,  what  was  the  limit?  Before  I  answ^ 
that  question,  let  me  remark  that  the  limit  might 
have  been  for  a  precise  number  of  years,  or  until 
the  happening  of  a  particular  event. 

The  Irish  legislature  might  have  fixed  that  limit 
as  it  pleased,  but  it  could  not  continue  its  own 
authority  for  one  moment,  or  in  any  one  respect, 
after  the  formation  of  the  new  legislature — the 
United  Kingdom  Parliament. 


k 


In  limiting  the  direction  to  take  the  oaths,  the 
Irish  Parliament  had  to  choose  between  the  mode  of' 
limiting  its  duration  for  a  given  number  of  years, 
or  until  the  happening  of  a  particular  event.  - 

f  The  legislature  chose  the  latter  course.  They 
did  limit  the  direction,  not  to  any  given  number 
of  days  or  years,  but  until  a  particular  event 
should  have  happened. 

f  The  legislature  might  have  directed  the  oaths 
to  be  taken  until  the  reigning  monarch  should 
land  in  Ireland.  If  the  Union  Act  had  so  limited 
the  time,  the  direction  to  take  the  oaths  would 
have  terminated  in  August  1821. 

The  legislature  might  have  directed  the  oaths 
to  be  taken  until  the  23rd  of  April,  1829.  If  the 
Union  Act  had  so  limited  the  time,  then  that  day 
would  have  terminated  the  direction  to  take  the 
oaths. 

I  now  reply  to  the  question — ^AVhat  was  the 
limit  in  the  Union  Act  ? 

-  It  was  —  Until  the  Parliament  of 
THE   United    Kingdom    shall    otherwise 

PROVIDE. 

Now  the  Parliament  of  the  United   Kingdom 

HAS    ACTUALLY    PROVIDED    OTHERWISE, 

The  event  has  happened  :  the  period  has  ar- 
rived :  the  limit  is  attained. 

There  is,  therefore,  an  end  to  the  direction  in 
the  Union  Acts.  The  Relief  Bill  is  that  ter- 
mination, and  we  must  now  look  to  the  Relief 
Bill,  and  to  that  alone,  for  any  obligation  to  take 
any  Parliamentary  Oaths. 

Now  the  Relief  Bill  abolishes  the  oath  called 
the  declaration  against  transubstantiation,  &c., 
altogether ;  and  for  all  Catholics,  in  order  to  the 
enjoyment  of  civil  rights,  it  requires  a  new  oath. 

It  contains  no  enactment  by  which  any  former 
oath  is  now  required  to  be  taken. 


/ 


w 


24 


To  render  any  oath  at  present  necessary,  it 
should  be  directed  by  the  Relief  Bill.  There  is 
no  such  direction,  save  as  to  the  new  oath :  I  am 
ready  to  take  that  oath. 

I  respectfully  and  confidently  submit,  that,  upon 
this  view  of  the  law  alone,  I  am  entitled,  by 
means  of  the  Relief  Bill,  to  sit  and  vote  by  taking 
the  new  oath.  I  am  entitled  to  make  this  asser- 
tion with  perfect  confidence.  The  matter  is,  in 
plain  truth,  quite  clear. 

Be  pleased  to  observe  particularly,  that  the 
Union  Act  does  not  direct  the  oaths  to  be  taken, 
Mive  as  the  same  may  be  altered  or  qualified  by 
the  United  Parliament ;  neither  does  it  direct 
that  the  oaths  shall  be  taken,  so  far  only  as  the 
United  Parliament  shall  leave  the  same  unaltered. 
That  is  not  all  the  frame  of  the  Union  Act.  Let 
not  the  two  things  be  confounded — It  was  not 
a  power  to  alter  or  qualify  the  oaths  which  the 
Union  Act  gave  to  the  United  Parliament. 

It  was  simply  a  limitation  of  its  own  enact- 
ment, until  the  United  Parliament  should  make 
any  other  provision. 

Observe,  it  was  time  that  was  limited — not 
authority  or  jurisdiction  in  the  United  Par- 
liament. 

Let  not  these  two  most  dissimilar  things  be 
confounded — time  and  authority.  The  time 
was  limited,  the  authority  was  left  uncontrolled. 

Now,  the  limit  in  point  of  time  has  passed,  the 
authority  is  silent  as  to  directing  any  oath  incon- 
sistent with  Catholic  tenets,  and  that  authority 
has  framed  and  directed  a  new  oath  to  be  taken 
which  I  am  willing  to  take. 

I  am,  therefore,  entitled  to  avail  myself  of  the 
termination  of  the  direction  in  the  Union  Act :  I 
am  ready  to  submit  to  the  direction  of  the  Relief 
BUI. 


25 


I  insist  that  the  direction  in  the  Union  Act  to 
take   the   old   oaths   has   expired,    and    is    quite 
defunct.     It  may,  perhaps,  be  said  that  it  is  not 
quite  dead — that  it  has  only  got  a  kind  of  paralytic 
stroke,  and  that  a  fragment  of  such  direction  still 
survives.     Shall  this  be  said  ?     If  so,  we  will  ask 
what    fragment   or   fractional    part.      It    cannot 
exceed    one-eight-miUionth     part.        There     are 
8,000,000  of  Catholics  in  the  United   Kingdom. 
The  direction  in  the  Union  Act  is  certainly  dead 
as  to  all  the  others  save  one,  and  in  honour  of  me 
the  one-eight-millionth  part   is   to  be  alive   and 
mischievous  ! 

This  absurdity  is,  however,  the  only  mode  of 
resisting  my  right  on  the  point  of  time  alone  ;  but 
this  absurdity  becomes  still  more  glaring  by  re- 
quiring those  additional  supports  to  enable  it  to 
stand  for  one  moment. 

First,  That  it  should  be  held  that  just  so  much 
of  the  Union  Act  remains  in  force  as  regulates  my 
case,  and  mingles  itself  in  order  to  make  law 
with  the  Rehef  Bill,  thus  leaving  the  direction 
of  the  act  of  the  Irish  Parliament  to  fill  up  a  small 
cranny  of  the  Relief  Bill. 

Secondly,  One  must  alter  the  frame  of  the 
enactment  of  the  Union  statute  :  the  word  "  until" 
must  be  blotted  out,  or  transposed  ;  or  added  to  by 
some  new  words,  and  in  some  new  arrangement  of 

phrase. 

Thirdly,  The  tenth  section  of  the  Relief  Bill 
must  be  expunged  altogether. 

It  might  be  quite  in  character,  in  poetic  fancy, 
to  annihilate  time  and  space,  to  make  lovers 
happy.  But  it  would  ill  suit  the  gravity  of  legal 
discussion  to  suggest  any  apprehension  of  a  similar 
summary  destruction  and  annihilation  in  a  matter 
of  so  unromantic  a  nature  as  Acts  of  Parliament. 

1  have  but  one  fear  on  my  mind,  and  it  is  this 


2G 


— lest  I  should  have  weakened  the  effect  of  hiy 
case  by  dilating  too  long  upon  topic.-,  each  of 
which  separately,  and  by  the  simple  statement  of 
its  merits,  would  abundantly  suffice  to  establish 
my  right. 

Let  me  therefore  sum  up,  by  an  abstract  of  the 
principal  points  on  which  I  rely.  I  shall  take  them 
in  a  different  order  from  that  in  which  I  have  dis- 
cussed them. 

Firsts  I  rely  on  the  enactment  of  the  Union 
Act — namely,  that  it  contained  only  a  direction 
to  take  the  old  oaths,  without  authorizing  the 
infliction  of  any  pains,  penalties,  or  disabilities 
whatsoever.  This  position  I  endeavoured  to  sus- 
tain by  my  letter  of  the  2nd  of  February  last.  To 
that  letter  I  refer.  I  have  only  to  add,  that  if 
that  letter  made  any  impression  before  the  Relief 
Bill  passed,  it  ought  now  be  rendered  more  per- 
suasive, when  only  a  fragment  of  the  Union  Act 
can  by  possibility  be  in  force. 

This  first  position  is  the  only  one  that  rests  on 
the  state  of  the  law,  before  the  passing  of  the 
Relief  Bill. 

Secondly,  I  rely  on  the  operation  and  effect  of 
the  Relief  Bill,  in  having  terminated  the  limit 
appointed  by  the  Union  Act  for  the  duration  of 
its  direction  to  take  the  old  oaths. 

Thirdly,  I  rely  on  the  operation  and  effect  of 
the  Relief  Bill,  in  having  abolished  the  declarations 
against  transubstantiation,  &c.,  and  thereby  ne- 
cessarily taken  away  all  the  pains,  penalties,  and 
disabilities,  created  by  the  30th  Charles  II. 

Fourthly,  I  rely  that  I  am  at  this  moment,  after 
the  commencement  of  the  Relief  Bill,  returned  as 
a  Member  of  the  House  of  Commons,  according  to 
the  legal  effect  of  the  words  of  the  second  section 
of  that  Bill.  This  proposition  I  entirely  submit  to 
the  practised  lawyers  of  the  House. 


?7 


Fifthly,  I  rely  on  the  express  enactments  of 
the  Relief  Bill.  The  first  section  annihilates  the 
declarations  against  transubstantiation,  &c.  The 
tenth  section  expressly  concedes  the  exercise  of 
every  civil  right  on  taking  the  new  oath,  and 
without  taking  the  oath  of  supremacy. 

Thus  these  two  sections  do  away  every  possible 
objection  to  my  taking  my  seat,  unless,  indeed, 
I  come  within  the  exce[)tions  in  the  tenth  section. 
That  section  confers  the  exercise  of  every  civil 
right,  without  taking  the  oaths  of  supremacy, 
except  as  thereinafter  excepted. 

Now  there  can  be  but  two  questions  remaining. 

First,  Is  the  right  to  sit  and  vote  in  Parliament 
thereinafter  excepted  ? 

My  answer  is  simple  and  decisive — it  is  not. 

Second,  Is  the  right  to  sit  and  vote  in  Parlia- 
ment a  civil  right  ? 

I  will  not  take  the  trouble  to  answer  this  ques- 
tion in  the  affirmative.  Indeed,  one  ought  to  travel 
ten  miles  to  see  the  man  who,  being  out  of  Bedlam, 
could  assert  that  the  right  to  sit  and  vote  in  Par- 
liament is  not  a  civil  right. 

So  clear,  so  plain,  so  palpable,  is  my  right  to  sit 
and  vote  in  Parliament. 

I  claim  the  exercise  of  this  right.  I  claim  it 
confidently.  I  claim  it  respectfully,  but  firmly, 
and  having  the  full  knowledge  that  to  refuse  it  to 
me  would  be  enormous  and  undignified  injustice. 
I  claim  it  with  the  full  expectation  that  it  will 
not  be  resisted  or  retarded. 

I  may  be  asked  why,  with  so  clear  a  case,  I  have 
delayed  so  long  to  assert  my  right.  My  answer  is 
ready.  I  felt  it  desirable  to  allow  the  first  ferment 
which  might  have  succeeded  the  Relief  Bill  to  sub- 
side, before  I  brought  forward  any  discussion  on 
any  subject  of  Catholic  right. 

Th^t  ferment  has  totally,  subsided,  or,  indeed,  \ 


28 


29 


should  say,  and  I  do  say  it,  to  the  credit  of  the 
good  sense  and  good  feeling  of  the  Protestants 
of  Ireland,  that  ferment  scarcely  existed  at  all, 
and  that  it  existed  only  amongst  a  few  undignified 
and  unnoticeable  persons,  whose  apprehensions  for 
the  contingent  loss  of  some  small  corporate  mono- 
poly infinitely  exceeded  their  zeal  for  religion  of 
any  kind. 

The  time  is  arrived  when  I  should  assert  my 
right,  and  take  upon  me  the  duties  belonging  to 
that  important  right.  I  trust  I  have  demonstrated 
that  right ;  but  of  this  I  am  quite  certain,  that  no 
question  of  privilege, — no  point  to  be  decided  by 
the  vote  of  any  set  of  men,  however  respectable, — 
can  arise  in  the  discussion  of  my  right,  if  it  shall 
be  discussed. 

I  ought  not  to  conclude  without  referring  to  the 
authority  of  Lord  Tenterden,  the  Lord  Chief  Jus- 
tice of  England.     If  we  may  credit  Parliamentary 
reporters  and   documents,    he   proposed  to  add  a 
clause  in  the  Relief  Bill  expressly  to  exclude  me  ; 
could  he  possibly  give  a  more  strong,  a  more  con- 
vincing proof  that  he  thought  and  felt  with  me  that 
the  Relief  Bill  did  not  exclude  me,  than  by  pro- 
posing a  clause  for  that  purpose  ?     He  must  have 
been  sensible  that  to  legislate  against  an  individual 
was  not  a  dignified  proceeding,  and  still  less  dig- 
nified could  it  have  been  in  a  high  judge  to  stain 
his  unspotted  ermine  with  the  dust  of  personal  con- 
flict, which  mistaken  notions  of  religion  may  cause 
a  good  man  to  raise.    Oh  no,  he  never  would  have 
placed  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  of  broad  England  in 
the  attitude  of  personal  enmity  with  an  insignifi- 
cant individual,  if  he  had  not  been  deeply  con- 
vinced that  such  exposure  was  absolutely  necessary 
in  order  to  effectuate  the  purpose  he  had  then  in 
view.     I  give  him  the  fullest  credit  for  the  purity 
of  his  motives.    I  heartily  thank  him  for  the  manly 


>'.:■ 


2 


■,i. 


^ 


»-■.■ 

*. 


"Sf- 


candour  of  his  personal  opposition,  and  I  gladly 
avail  myself  of  his  high  legal  authority. 

It  may  be  vanity,  but  yet  I  do  know  that  Ireland 
awaits  with  impatient  expectation  the  final  esta- 
blishment of  my  right  to  sit  and  vote  as  a  repre- 
sentative of  the  people.  The  people,  with  and 
through  me,  claim  the  full  benefit  of  the  Relief 
Bill.  Is  that  Bill  to  be  a  mere  dead  letter,  or  are 
its  provisions  to  be  frittered  away  by  any  sophisti- 
cations? Is  there  any  undefined  and  undefinable 
authority  to  interpose  between  the  subject  and  the 
exercise  of  his  legal  rights  ?  God  forlDid  any  one 
of  these  questions  should  be  answered  in  the 
affirmative,  or  that  a  shadow  of  doubt  should  be 
flung  upon  what  I  consider  free  from  all  sus- 
picion,— namely,  the  straightforward  and  manly 
course  which  in  the  Relief  Bill  itself  all  parties 
exhibited  who  supported  it  through  both  Houses 
of  Parliament.  It  matters  little  what  becomes  of 
me ;  but  it  is  of  great  and  vital  importance  that 
the  King  and  the  Parliament  should  not  at  this 
moment  of  great  distress  and  coming  difficulties, 
lose  any  portion  of  that  confidence  and  gratitude 
of  the  people  of  Ireland  which  they  have  ob- 
tained by  the  Relief  Bill. 

I  have  the  honour  to  be,  &c. 


DANIEL  O'CONNELL, 

Member  for  the  County  of  Clare, 


London,  May  9,  1829. 


LONDON. 
PRINTED    BY    T.    BRETTELL,    RUPERT    STREET,    HAYMARKET. 


(I 


M 


.1: 


0^ 


IMPORTANT     WORKS. 

IN    COURSE   OF   PUBLICATION 

BY    JAMES    RIDGWAY, 

jind   to    be   hady    by    OrdeVy  of  every    Bookseller   in  the   Kingdom, 


INDIA. 

AN  EXAMINATION  OF  THE  MONOPOLIES  OF 
THE  EAST  INDIA  COMPANY.  By  the  Author  of  **  Free 
Trade  and  Colonization  of  India."     (Nearly  ready.) 

A  PRACTICAL  TREATISE  ON  PARLIAMENT- 
ARY LAW,  in  respect  to  Private  Bills,  &c.  By  C.  Sinclair 
CuLLEN,  Esq.,  Barrister-at-Law,  and  Commissioner  of  Bankrupts. 
( Preparing  for  the  Press.  J 

THE  PRESENT  STATE  OF  THE  TENANCY  OF 
LAND  IN  GREAT  BRITAIN,  showing  the  principal  Customs 
and  Practices  between  Incoming  and  Outgoing  Tenants,  and  the 
most  usual  method  under  which  Land  is  now  held  in  the  several 
Counties;  with  Notices  of  the  Husbandry  and  Implements  in  use, 
from  actual  Surveys.  By  Lewis  Kennedy,  and  T.  B.  Grainger^ 
With  a  Plate,  1  vol.  8vo.,  being  Part  I.     Price  15^.  boards. 

"  Interesting  not  only  to  the  Laud-owner  and  Farmer,  but,  where  such 
matters  are  under  legal  investigation,  by  suggesting  important  questions,  it  i* 
calculated  greatly  to  promote  an  expeditious  and  equitable  decision  on  the 
subjects  under  consideration." — Times. 

The  Second  Part  of 

THE  TENANCY  of  LAND  in  GREAT  BRITAIN, 

containing  the  Customs  now  prevailing  between  Landlord  and 
Tenant,  and  Incoming  and  Outgoing  Tenants,  in  the  Highland  and 
Grazing  Districts  ;  from  actual  Surveys  by  the  Authors,  in  the 
Years  1828  and  1829.  Also,  Facts  relative  to  the  present  State  of 
the  VVoolgrowers,  the  general  mode  of  Management  of  Sheep 
Farms,  with  a  Brief  Fiistory  of  Sheep  in  Great  Britain.  By 
L.  Kennedy  and  T.  B.  Grainger.     1  vol.  8vo.     (Nearly  ready,) 

On  May  1,  1829,.  was  published^  to  he  continued  every  Three  Monthsy 

No.  Xf.,  price  4s, 

THE  BRITISH  FARMEirS  (Quarterly)  MAGA- 
ZINE ;  a  Work  exclusively  devoted  to  Agricultural  and  Rural 
Affairs. 

Contents:— A  Fine  Engraving  of  an  Improved  Short-horned  Bull,  bred  by 
John  Hutchinson,  Esq.,  with  Description.  An  Engraving  of  a  New  Feeding 
Shed,  with  Description  by  George  Sinclair,  F.H.S.,  Author  of  *'  Hortus  Gra- 
minicus  Woburnensis,"  &c.  Rev.  Henry  Berry  on  Breeding.  Dr.  Myers  on 
Agricultural  Institutions.  Gray  on  International  Commerce  and  Currency. 
Delia  on  Analogy  of  Animals  and  Vegetables.  On  Ergot  in  Rye,  and  Smut 
in  Wheat.  Alton  on  Chemical  and  Theoretical  Errors.  Sherriffs  Strictures 
on  Dr.  Fleming.  On  Bone  Manure.  Introduction  of  Goats.  Reviews  of 
Books.     Miscellanies.     Agricultural  Reports.    Sporting  Intelligence  6ic.  &c. 

The  Ten  previous  Numbers  may  be  had,  price  4*.  each,  or  neatly 
half-bound,  in  2  vols.  24s, 


Impo rtan t  Wo rhs  pv blish ed  btj  Jjmes  Ridgjvay^  Piccadilly. 


Mr.  canning. 

THE  SPEECHES  OF  THE  RIGHT  HONORABLE 
GEORGE  CANNING,  corrected  by  Himself;  with  Memoirs  of 
his  Life,  by  R.  Tiifrry,  Esq,  of  Gray's  Inn,  Barrister -at-Law. 
Illustrated  by  a  fine  Portrait,  Fac-similes  of  his  Hand-Writing,  a 
Plate  exhibitive  of  his  mode  of  correcting  and  revising  his  Speeches, 
&c.,  in  two  important  passages  from  the  celebrated  one  on  Portugal. 
G  vols.  8vo.,  3/.  i2s, 

**  A  biographical  memoir  of*  the  most  illustrious  statesman  and  accomplished 
orator  of  our  age,  prefixed  to  Ihe  only  authentic  edition  of  his  Speeches,  has 
far  superior  claims  to  notice  and  credit  over  any  of  those  e[>hemeral  and  hurried 
sketches  of  his  life,  which,  without  authority,  and  for  mere  abject  purposes  of 
lucre,  have  been  thickly  palmed  upon  the  public  attention.  *  •  *  It  embraces 
the  essence  and  subj-tance  of  all  the  truth  that  (except  it  should  be  through 
the  atfeclionate  and  venerating  zeal  of  personal  friends  or  kindred)  will,  pro- 
bably, ever  be  told  of  the  life  of  George  Canning," — Muuthly  Review. 

"  We  recommend  this  edition  of  Mr.  Canning's  brilliant,  splendid,  and 
statesmanlike  Speeches, as  the  noblest  literary  memorial  than  can  be  preserved 
of  him." — Literary  Gazette, 

**  This  excellent  and  valuable  edition  of  Mr.  Canning's  Speeches,  by  Mr. 
Thcrry,  contains,  among  other  things,  a  remarkable  instance  of  the  application 
of  the  new  process  of  typolilhoijraphy.  There  is,  in  the  first  volume,  a  fac- 
simile of  the  proofs  of  the  celebrated  Speech  on  the  affairs  of  Portugal,  with 
all  the  corrections  made  by  Mr.  Canning.  Every  mark  which  he  made  in  the 
letter-press,  every  reference,  and  every  word  written  on  the  margin,  is  repre- 
sented as  it  appeared  in  his  hand-writing  in  the  proofs." — Times. 

THE     SPEECHES     OF     THE     HON.     THOMAS 

(afterwards  LORD)  ERSKINE,  when  at  the  Bar,  on  Subjects 
connected  with  the  Liberty  of  the  Press,  and  against  constructive 
Treason.     5  vols.  8vo.,  2/.  105. 

*'  These  Speeches,  stored  as  they  are  with  the  soundest  political  doctrines, 
the  first  moral  sentiments,  and  the  purest  oratorical  beauties,  are  calculated 
eminently  to  enlighten,  and  permanently  to  please.  'Ihey  are  qualified  to 
make  men  not  only  wiser  but  better — to  expand  their  views— to  study  their 
principles,  and  to  ameliorate  their  hearts — to  teach  them  to  pursue  the  dictates 
of  duty,  at  every  pain  and  peril — and  to  uphold  the  interests  of  humanity  in 
every  sphere  and  season." — Morning  Chronicle, 

*'  We  take  the  opinion  of  the  country,  and  of  every  part  of  the  world  where 
the  language  is  understood,  to  be  that  of  the  most  unbounded  admiration  of 
these  exquisite  specimens  of  judicial  oratory,  and  of  great  obligations  to  the 
editor  of  the  collection." — Edinburgh  Review^  \o\.  XIX. 

THE  SPEECHES   OF    SIR    SAMUEL    ROMILLY 

in  the  House  of  Commons,  with  Memoirs  of  his  Life.  By  William 
Peter,  Esq.,  Barrister.  Illustrated  by  a  fine  Portrait  by  Reynolds, 
after  Sir  T.  Lawrence.     2  vols.  2Qs, 

THE  SPEECHES  OF  THE  RIGHT  HONORABLE 

CHARLES  JAMES  FOX,  in  the  House  of  Commons,  with  a 
correct  Portrait  by  Opie.     6  vols.  4/.  8?. 

Fourth  Edition,  8vo.,  IG^. 

MEMOIRS  AND  CORRESPONDENCE  OF  VICE- 
AI^^jIRAL  LORD  COLLINGWOOD,  fine  Portrait,  &c. 


